USA V. ERNEST BABBINI, No. 13-10069 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 30 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10069 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00364-PGR v. MEMORANDUM* ERNEST BABBINI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Ernest Babbini appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Babbini s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Babbini filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. Babbini has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988. We decline to address Babbini s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and counsel s legal representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that Babbini obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003) ( Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal. ). Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 13-10069

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.